knitr::opts_chunk$set(fig.width = 6, fig.height = 4, fig.path = 'Figs/',
echo = FALSE, message = FALSE, warning = FALSE)
dir_git <- path.expand('~/github/ohibc')
source(file.path(dir_git, 'src/R/common.R'))
dir_spatial <- file.path(dir_git, 'prep/_spatial')
dir_anx <- file.path(dir_M, 'git-annex/bcprep')
### goal specific folders and info
goal <- 'fis'
scenario <- 'v2017'
dir_goal <- file.path(dir_git, 'prep', goal, scenario)
dir_goal_anx <- file.path(dir_anx, goal, scenario)
### provenance tracking
library(provRmd); prov_setup()
### Kobe plot functions
source(file.path(dir_goal, 'kobe_fxns.R'))
library(plotly)
There are 13 RAM stocks used for the FIS sub-goal.
The catch values here come from the RAM database as well.
Remove tuna
Breaking this up by region and stock
Looking just at albacore tuna, the offshore region is entirely dependent on Albacore tuna while this stock makes up a very small portion of the catch elsewhere.
Pulling in the B/Bmsy estimates for stocks in FAO area 67 from this year (2017) for consideration in the model.
How much catch is reported for BC stocks in RAM? And of that catch, how much do these stocks contribute to the total?
Let’s look at how catch changes by species over time using the SAUP data.